A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[JoeyKnothead]

I know that event and suspected you would use that image (it's a common creationist image).

That was caused by pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens. It was done over the course of a couple of months indeed but that is just one deposition type and on top of that, not produced by any flood mechanic. I'm not doubting that rapid deposition is possible but we know how fast Chalk deposition forms...very slowly! So, if you have one piece of refuting evidence your theory/model falls apart.

Also could you please reiterate your question...I've lost it.

I just tried to get a source for what I was claiming and I actually found it, on all places, on a creationist site:

Caption for that very image:

It would be easy to think millions of years. However, the bottom layer formed in 6 hours on 18th May 1980, the middle layer was formed on 12th June 1980 and the top layer by mud flow in March 1982, following the eruption of Mt St Helens.

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn-f.htm

So, the burden is on you to show that a flood can cause as rapid deposition as you claim.

Wouldn't dating methods reveal the "times" involved here? I realize these particular deposits may be too young for some methods, but what I'm getting at is in the various other strata we can date such to be varying ages, thus eliminating a single flood event as the source for the strata.

[Scotracer]

I know that event and suspected you would use that image (it's a common creationist image).

That was caused by pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens. It was done over the course of a couple of months indeed but that is just one deposition type and on top of that, not produced by any flood mechanic. I'm not doubting that rapid deposition is possible but we know how fast Chalk deposition forms...very slowly! So, if you have one piece of refuting evidence your theory/model falls apart.

Also could you please reiterate your question...I've lost it.

I just tried to get a source for what I was claiming and I actually found it, on all places, on a creationist site:

Caption for that very image:

It would be easy to think millions of years. However, the bottom layer formed in 6 hours on 18th May 1980, the middle layer was formed on 12th June 1980 and the top layer by mud flow in March 1982, following the eruption of Mt St Helens.

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn-f.htm

So, the burden is on you to show that a flood can cause as rapid deposition as you claim.

Wouldn't dating methods reveal the "times" involved here? I realize these particular deposits may be too young for some methods, but what I'm getting at is in the various other strata we can date such to be varying ages, thus eliminating a single flood event as the source for the strata.

Well, we do - that's how we know when stratas were laid down but creationists reject radiometric and other dating methods (for some very obscure reasons). I have found the only way to truly show Creationists are wrong is to use their methods of analysis (or at least ones they will accept).

[otseng]

That was caused by pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens. It was done over the course of a couple of months indeed but that is just one deposition type and on top of that, not produced by any flood mechanic.

I'm simply refuting your claim "the idea of a single event causing stratification is demonstrably wrong." As for flood mechanics at Mt St Helens, we can get to that later.

Also could you please reiterate your question...I've lost it.

Original in post 15, reiterated in post 27.

Wouldn't dating methods reveal the "times" involved here? I realize these particular deposits may be too young for some methods, but what I'm getting at is in the various other strata we can date such to be varying ages, thus eliminating a single flood event as the source for the strata.

We don't need any radiometric dating to date it. It is a given that the stratas were formed from 1980 to 1982. But even if we did radiometric dating, would you agree that it should date it as a recent event?

[Scotracer]

That was caused by pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens. It was done over the course of a couple of months indeed but that is just one deposition type and on top of that, not produced by any flood mechanic.

I'm simply refuting your claim "the idea of a single event causing stratification is demonstrably wrong." As for flood mechanics at Mt St Helens, we can get to that later.

Also could you please reiterate your question...I've lost it.

Original in post 15, reiterated in post 27.

Wouldn't dating methods reveal the "times" involved here? I realize these particular deposits may be too young for some methods, but what I'm getting at is in the various other strata we can date such to be varying ages, thus eliminating a single flood event as the source for the strata.

We don't need any radiometric dating to date it. It is a given that the stratas were formed from 1980 to 1982. But even if we did radiometric dating, would you agree that it should date it as a recent event?

I meant all stratification in a single event, as you were implying.

If the Flood model is correct, yes all structures on earth (such as geological areas and stratification) must be able to be shown that they formed quickly, within the space of and I quote "A few months".

And I have given 3 things which immediately counter it (Chalk formation, ununiform stratification and how the Mount St Helens was not a flood mechanic).

[JoeyKnothead]

Wouldn't dating methods reveal the "times" involved here? I realize these particular deposits may be too young for some methods, but what I'm getting at is in the various other strata we can date such to be varying ages, thus eliminating a single flood event as the source for the strata.

We don't need any radiometric dating to date it. It is a given that the stratas were formed from 1980 to 1982. But even if we did radiometric dating, would you agree that it should date it as a recent event?

I was referring to the dating of all the "old" strata. Many different layers are dated with millions of years difference. Unless the flood lasted for these many millions of years, I don't see how it can explain these ages.

[otseng]

If the Flood model is correct, yes all structures on earth (such as geological areas and stratification) must be able to be shown that they formed quickly, within the space of and I quote "A few months".

This is not the prediction that I'm asking everyone to agree on. This is:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not?

I was referring to the dating of all the "old" strata. Many different layers are dated with millions of years difference. Unless the flood lasted for these many millions of years, I don't see how it can explain these ages.

Exactly what are you referring to? I'm assuming you're talking about the picture I posted in post 29. All the stratas in that picture was formed by Mt St Helens.

[Scotracer]

If the Flood model is correct, yes all structures on earth (such as geological areas and stratification) must be able to be shown that they formed quickly, within the space of and I quote "A few months".

This is not the prediction that I'm asking everyone to agree on. This is:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not?

I was referring to the dating of all the "old" strata. Many different layers are dated with millions of years difference. Unless the flood lasted for these many millions of years, I don't see how it can explain these ages.

Exactly what are you referring to? I'm assuming you're talking about the picture I posted in post 29. All the stratas in that picture was formed by Mt St Helens.

If the Flood Model is at least partially correct their should be uniform folding throughout the entire strata height.

Joey is talking about strata just about everywhere in the world that is dated millions of years apart from the others (one easy example of this is the Grand Canyon). How could this be with the Flood Model?

[JoeyKnothead]

Joey is talking about strata just about everywhere in the world that is dated millions of years apart from the others (one easy example of this is the Grand Canyon). How could this be with the Flood Model?

Exactly. The various and vastly different ages of strata around the world indicate the flood would had to have lasted for much longer than 40 days and nights, or 40,000 years to the "god's day can be a thousand years" crowd.

[otseng]

If the Flood Model is at least partially correct their should be uniform folding throughout the entire strata height.

Yes, the FM would predict that generally we would see folding that would affect the entire sequence at any particular location on Earth. Same goes for erosion, faults, etc.

Now, would you agree that in standard geology that we should see roughly a uniform distribution of these in stratas? Folding, erosion, faulting should stop at one strata, and above that, it would not be affected.

Joey is talking about strata just about everywhere in the world that is dated millions of years apart from the others (one easy example of this is the Grand Canyon). How could this be with the Flood Model?

The dating relies primarily on radioisotope dating. But, there are quite a number of assumptions that needs to hold true in order for it to be valid.

When we date rocks at Mt St Helens, we know exactly how old the rocks are (~ 30 yrs old), since we've witnessed the event. Yet, radioisotope dating puts the rocks on the order of hundreds of thousands of years old. So, if radioisotope dating gives a false value for something that we know the age for, how can we rely on it for something we do not know the age for?

[Goat]

If the Flood Model is at least partially correct their should be uniform folding throughout the entire strata height.

Yes, the FM would predict that generally we would see folding that would affect the entire sequence at any particular location on Earth. Same goes for erosion, faults, etc.

Now, would you agree that in standard geology that we should see roughly a uniform distribution of these in stratas? Folding, erosion, faulting should stop at one strata, and above that, it would not be affected.

Can you tell me HOW it predicts it? Can you provide a test that provides the way the sorting actually appears to have happened in the strata? Can it explain why trilobites are not ever in the same strata as modern fish?

Can you explain how the FM predicts it, and show me what kind of testing can be done to confirm or falsify the fluid mechanics that would be required to segregate
trilobites from the modern fish of the same size/density?

Now, when it comes to 'depends on radiometric dating'.. can you show what assumptions are you talking about, and show that they are have NOT been tested repeatedly?